Pan and/or zoom the canvas (canvas.animatePan) for everyone's view, in scene pixels, not grid squares. All fields optional: omit x/y to keep the centre, scale to keep the zoom. canvas-ping draws attention to a spot instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | Scene-pixel X to centre on. Omit to keep current. | |
| y | No | Scene-pixel Y to centre on. Omit to keep current. | |
| scale | No | Zoom level (1 = 100%). Omit to keep current. | |
| duration | No | Animation duration in ms. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare it's non-destructive, idempotent, and not read-only. The description adds that changes apply 'for everyone's view' (broadcast effect) and clarifies units. But it omits permission requirements, whether the change is reversible, and what happens if the canvas isn't loaded. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by optional-parameter behavior and sibling contrast. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Complete enough for a niladic-ish (all-optional) view-control tool: purpose, scope, units, parameter omissibility, and sibling alternative are all covered. No output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. Only permission/prerequisite context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that all fields are optional and that omitting x/y keeps the centre and omitting scale keeps the zoom, which reinforces the schema's omissibility semantics and clarifies intent beyond the field-level descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Pan and/or zoom the canvas (canvas.animatePan) for everyone's view.' It also distinguishes units ('in scene pixels, not grid squares') and points to the sibling alternative 'canvas-ping draws attention to a spot instead.' An agent can immediately understand what the tool does and that it affects the shared view.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states when to use this tool by explaining pan/zoom behavior and explicitly contrasting with canvas-ping for drawing attention. It also gives usage details about optional fields. However, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., VIEW_CANVAS permission) or when not to use it beyond the single sibling contrast.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.